Traverse Tool to Use Azimuth Types

[MikeZummo]

Hi There, 

   Currently different Azimuth types (Grid, Rhumb Line, Forward/Mean/Reverse Geodetic) for COGO lines are supported when using the Two-Point line tool. From the testing I have completed so far, these direction types seem to be working quite well and make a huge difference when entering lines from survey plats that show mean geodetic bearings. I think it would be great if these Azimuth types could be supported when using the Traverse tool. 

Thanks,

Mike Z

@TimHodson 

@AmirBar-Maor 

[joshuaforeman]

I agree, adding this functionality to the Traverse Tool would drastically decrease data entry times and minimize errors with hand entering numerous line courses.  Thanks @MikeZummo 

[AmirBar-Maor]

@joshuaforeman 

So far the only organization we know of that uses true mean bearing is BLM.

We would like to know if anyone else is using it.

Do you also work for/with BLM?

Thanks,

Amir

[LucasBeauchamp]

I strongly endorse this idea as well.

[JeffSwann]

I 100% need this tool.

[MonteKing]

The tool would be of great use to many in the GCDB/cadNSDI world! Thank you @MikeZummo 

[AmirBar-Maor]

Would anyone use it outside of CadNSDI (PLSS - US Public Land Survey System)?

@MikeZummo 

When you are entering a 'true mean bearing' direction, do you also have the turning points? meaning - do you have the point and coordinates at the line extremities that you would need to snap to?

@nancyvonmeyer what is your take on the use of true mean bearing on BLM plats?

Are they really observed using theodolites in the 21 century? or inversed from GNSS?

[MonteKing]

@AmirBar-Maor 

I am not sure anyone outside of PLSS world would utilize the tool except the BLM does still execute surveys in M&B states reporting bearings as true so there is a slim chance folks in M&B states would use it.

We typically use geodetic (GNSS inverse) but many surveys are not GNSS friendly so we still use conventional total stations utilizing astronomic/true bearings from celestial observations(Polaris or Sun). The geodetic vs astronomic/true is minimal difference for the most part therefore they are typically interchanged.

For an interesting read if not already done so see Jerry Wahl's paper on PLSS datum at the below link

http://www.cadastral.com/cad-datm.htm

[AmirBar-Maor]

@MonteKing 

Thanks for the input.

So far we know that anyone that maintains PLSS would be using it (BLM, state custodians, BIA, USFS) but we were trying to understand if there is anyone else.

Local governments in the US usually survey the physical section corners using high accuracy GNSS and have never expressed interest in other direction types. 

However, all customers need to be able to enter historic information that uses the old survey technics before the total station era.

Thanks for sharing Jerry's Wahl paper. IMHO it would be great if every PLSS monument was surveyed using survey-grade GNSS and its coordinates, epoch, and accuracy published for the next generations. Some PLSS custodians are more progressive and some are more traditional. Some accept surveys from other agencies and some only trust their own surveyors.

Maybe such a discussion is better suited for this group: https://community.esri.com/t5/plss-editing/gh-p/plss-editing 

[Cal_Norton]

I support Mike Zummo, the traverse tool needs to include azimuth types.

[AmirBar-Maor]

Will be implemented with ArcGIS pro 3.3